Comments for The Uninvited Interlocutorhttps://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com
Bitcoin donations gratefully accepted. Thanks: 1EsJU1soVbS1MkpihYjKjDpcFKGLDdMFLUMon, 25 Mar 2013 17:56:35 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/Comment on Why I Feel Sorry For Peter Hitchens by The Semiotics Of Scratch ‘N Sniff: Crimestoppers UK and #weedthesigns | The Uninvited Interlocutorhttps://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/why-i-feel-sorry-for-peter-hitchens/#comment-238
Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:56:35 +0000http://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/?p=87#comment-238[…] the first piece I wrote for this blog, Why I Feel Sorry For Peter Hitchens, I argued that the enforcement of unjust/inconsistent/widely unheeded laws can lead to disrespect […]
]]>Comment on Frictionless Fiction: The Slippery Slope by Tamer (@onetamer)https://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-slippery-slope-is-actually-very-sticky/#comment-157
Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:39:10 +0000http://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/?p=402#comment-157Thanks for shedding light on the slippery slope. Seems it’s not that slippery after all! The slippery aspect is a mirage for the most part, and it seems to vanish upon closer inspection.
]]>Comment on MOOC: For Those Interested In Learning About Reason And Argumentation by Rational Mystichttps://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/mooc-for-those-interested-in-learning-about-reason-and-argumentation/#comment-153
Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:18:10 +0000http://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/?p=586#comment-153This is a very cool new movement in education. Soon we will be free of the shackles of institutionalized academia.
]]>Comment on MOOC: For Those Interested In Learning About Reason And Argumentation by KARENhttps://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/mooc-for-those-interested-in-learning-about-reason-and-argumentation/#comment-152
Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:48:54 +0000http://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/?p=586#comment-152BRILLIANT!! THANK YOU- THANK YOU – THANK YOU
]]>Comment on Frictionless Fiction: The Slippery Slope by Uninvited Interlocutorhttps://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-slippery-slope-is-actually-very-sticky/#comment-151
Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:52:21 +0000http://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/?p=402#comment-151Some very good points here on the always negative nature of the resultant outcome of slippery slopes (where are the slippery slopes to positivity/happiness?) and the overly emotive characterization of the end result (“it’s a road to an Orwellian society!”) — the slippery slope leverages the fear of emotively charged negative outcomes in order to convince or dissuade.
]]>Comment on Frictionless Fiction: The Slippery Slope by Uninvited Interlocutorhttps://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-slippery-slope-is-actually-very-sticky/#comment-150
Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:30:57 +0000http://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/?p=402#comment-150“Camel’s nose,” “thin end of the wedge,” or “foot in the door” are all just synonyms for the same argument form. I think you’re right that many people see them as somehow different from what I’ve described, but they’re just different names for the same thing. The issue always lies with the likelihood of progressing beyond the initial step or beyond what’s deemed reasonable/effective/warranted, etc. There will certainly be some cases where the fear of progression is justified, but the longer the slope (i.e., the greater the number of steps involved in order to get to the final undesirable end) the less likely that fear is warranted.

The takeaway message should be: if your sole argument is a slippery slope and the starting point is removed from the end point by more than a few steps, then in most cases your position is not going to be overly well supported. In such a case, it’s best to find another argument to support your case — and if you can’t find one, then it might be wise to reconsider your position. If you can find one, then it’s probably best to leave the slippery slope behind and just go with the better argument. In both cases, it works out that it is best to drop the slippery slope argument.

]]>Comment on Frictionless Fiction: The Slippery Slope by Dan Haleshttps://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-slippery-slope-is-actually-very-sticky/#comment-149
Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:13:51 +0000http://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/?p=402#comment-149Not having any real logic training I found this very interesting. It seems to me that most people who reffer to the argument may in fact have a more ‘foot in the door’ or ‘camel’s nose’ objection in mind. That is they feel that some agency may find D desirable and by convincing them that A is reasonable and necesary may hope to do the same with B, C and D over time as they adjust and get used to the change. For example American gun enthusiasts (with whom I disagree by the way) would be correct to fear that the gun control lobby has more in mind in the long term than regulating magazine length. With regard to the British press; the legislation recomended by Lord Justice Levinson would actually enshrine the freedom of the press rather than chip away at it or send it sliding down the slope.
]]>Comment on Frictionless Fiction: The Slippery Slope by Rational Mystichttps://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-slippery-slope-is-actually-very-sticky/#comment-148
Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:19:25 +0000http://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/?p=402#comment-148Perhaps when all points on the slope from A to D have a clear causal link, the slippery slope argument becomes more valid. Obviously there is no clear causal link between legalising gay marriage and causing the sun to explode so the slippery slope argument is false there. However, banning smoking indoors in a public place does have a causal link to making it illegal to smoke indoors in a rented apartment or separating children from smoker parents (which is literally what many anti-smoking lobbyist groups in California are trying to do and sadly succeeding to a large degree). This obviously does not automatically make this line of argument valid. you still have probability to contend with, but the probability of these events have an intelligent agent behind them: the asshole trying to take your liberties away from you.
]]>Comment on Why I Feel Sorry For Peter Hitchens by Rational Mystichttps://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/why-i-feel-sorry-for-peter-hitchens/#comment-147
Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:07:31 +0000http://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/?p=87#comment-147Wow, you’ve really destroyed Hitchens in this article. Whatever spiel scaremongers spin, the winds of change have already being released. Marijuana is going to be legalised widely worldwide in the next 10 years. Crimes across a wide spectrum will drop, pizza sales will go through the roof, Harold and Kumar stories shall be taught to our kids… The world will be a happier, fuzzier place and unicorns shall walk upon the earth.
]]>Comment on Frictionless Fiction: The Slippery Slope by John T Shallowhttps://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-slippery-slope-is-actually-very-sticky/#comment-146
Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:16:47 +0000http://theuninvitedinterlocutor.wordpress.com/?p=402#comment-146It could be argued that a slippery slope argument is never a case of ‘A will lead inevitably to D’, as in such a defined case, a decision to take step A is the decision to take steps B, C and D. So in these cases (rare), the progress from A to D is not a slippery slope, but inevitable. Therefore, when a slippery slope argument is applicable, D can only be a possible outcome, and other outcomes, or other D’s, must exist.

For me this means that whenever a slippery slope argument is made, it must be questioned, as it is never inevitable.

It can also be argued that a slippery slope argument is always a negative argument. If D was seen as a positive outcome, it would never be presented as a slippery slope. Not just another reason for questioning a slippery slope, more of a given. It is for me, as I always question slippery slope arguments, and I always start from the position that the argued outcome is wrong, or at the very least, unlikely.

It is my conclusion on such arguments that bother me the most. The D presented in such arguments is usually emotive, and designed to appeal on a superficial, sound bite, level as a way of preventing A. This is the power of the slippery slope argument, as it gives the anti A’s a powerful, but specious, sound bite argument that will be listened to by a lot of people. Because of this effect, it becomes more important not only to always question these arguments, but to question them in the same forum that they were first presented.